What better time than Melbourne Cup Day 2009, the first Tuesday in November, for Tasmania’s ultra-cynical Premier, David Bartlett, to announce the presentation of legislation amending the 2007 Pulp Mill Assessment Act (PMAA), an amendment which goes beyond the normal provisions of the legislative requirements applied to any other Tasmanian projects, including those which are termed “projects of State significance”.

Bartlett decided to use the rhetoric and tactics of his former leader, Paul Lennon, saying that the mill “should be decided on whether it can meet the world’s toughest environmental guidelines and the demands of its financiers, rather than by lawyers…”.

This is an amazingly false statement, as is known in much greater depth and understanding now than when the unjust PMAA was passed into law. At that time no-one was to know that the federal parliament would apply much more stringent environment controls where the Commonwealth had jurisdiction, especially in relation to the impacts of mill effluent on Commonwealth waters in Bass Strait.

The Tasmanian PMAA made no attempt at all to apply similar levels of control in relation to Tasmanian waters. This in itself is evidence sufficient to trash Bartlett’s statement. He was one of those Tasmanian politicians who supported the PMAA without even considering its environmental impacts.

Bartlett well knows that if Commonwealth environmental law applied more broadly, and included jurisdictional responsibility to consider impacts on the Tamar Valley, on water catchments, on air, on use of aerial spraying, on people’s health and welfare – to name just some of the problems associated with the project – the PMAA would never have got to the drafting stage, let alone being much more stringent in its requirements.

Bartlett also knows that the project was deemed “critically non-compliant” by the assessment authority (Tasmanian RPDC) responsible for evaluating “projects of State significance”, a matter of days before Gunns withdrew from that process. Bartlett also knows that some of those areas of non-compliance were ignored by the PMAA.

Bartlett also knows that the “world’s toughest environmental guidelines” do not apply to Tasmanian forestry management practices. Clear felling, as it practiced in Tasmania, native forestry operations as they are conducted in Tasmania, logging of old-growth forests as it is conducted in Tasmania, do not meet the standards required by possible investors in the project and possible buyers of Tasmanian pulp, who require FSC certification.

Bartlett is not telling the truth when he says the “intent of the original legislation” was to meet tough environmental guidelines.

We can, of course, look forward to further amendments of the PMAA to meet whatever Gunns sees is in their shareholders’ interest. No doubt we can look forward to learning how the Bartlett government has used more taxpayers’ funds on Gunns’ behalf, whether in be on overseas trips (secret or otherwise) by bureaucrats and politicians, or in extra “incentive sweeteners” to prospective JVPs, extra infrastructure, or merely lots of bureaucratic time and effort to get those pipelines from Trevallyn to the mill site.

But that’s probably already been done, and we just don’t know about it. But as Michael Aird made clear to Tamar Valley residents during the weeks leading up to Melbourne Cup Day, if things go wrong and people get hurt, that’s not the problem of government. That’s a problem for the people who get hurt.

If there is a kind of poetic justice in Bartlett’s cynical attempt to use the first Tuesday in November to bury the story of the PMAA amendments – in the sense that it was the day when the Melbourne Cup was tarnished by the participation of the Chechen dictator’s horse Mourilyan – there is another aspect to Bartlett’s cynicism which needs some emphasis.

Bartlett has imitated Paul Lennon’s tactic of “fast tracking”. There are just five parliamentary sitting days left this year. Bartlett is deliberately trying to lock in another two years for Gunns’ permits without the ramifications of that decision being adequately debated by parliament.

He is attempting to ensure that Gunns’ permits are kept alive well into the term of the next State government, whatever its complexion. This means that there will be another two years of indecision among thousands of Tasmanians about their future across a range of industries, not just in the forestry sector, but in many farming communities, and right throughout the Tamar Valley – all to serve the interests of one company.

Perhaps Bartlett’s intent is to ensure a further decrease in confidence among Tasmanian farmers, fishermen, tourist operators and land owners in those parts of Tasmania where resources for the mill be grown, and where land and water supplies will be increasingly siphoned off for more plantations.

Perhaps Bartlett’s intent is to drive people out of the Tamar Valley, to lower land values, to diminish the Valley’s value by inhibiting investment – except in forestry for a nearby mill.

What we now shall see is how these amendments will be forced through the Tasmanian Parliament in the remaining sitting days.

This man is “in charge”??????????Just who is in charge of him??????????

Posted by Philip Lowe on 04/11/09 at 07:35 AM

The RPDC found that the pulp mill would be critically non compliant and because of this the fast track approved by parliament will all ways have a stigma attached to it. As it now appears there never was any need to fast track the project, the Liberals now have the chance to prove that they are not in a coalition with the Labour party and only vote for the mill to go back to the RPDC.

Posted by max on 04/11/09 at 08:21 AM

Surely if some of the permits have already expired they will need to go back to the RPDC for assessment & approval/refusal. Oh, I that’s right, this is Gunnsmania…

Posted by Christopher Purcell on 04/11/09 at 10:29 AM

If this greasy huckster ever held to anything he said, the “world’s toughest environmental guidelines” would be the end of the mill race. Such guidelines would never countenance the frantic forest clearing for plantations currently going on.

And without Barty’s lavish financial support for Gunns, the financiers would quickly provide a second stake through the mill’s heart.

If only the Corporations or Criminal law extended to Tassie pollies

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 04/11/09 at 10:47 AM

I agree with Max… now we see just how far the Liberals will go to appease Gunns and Bartlett’s cronies. We will now find out if he is apart from the Labor gov’t or if he is just the right hand man to Bartlett.

Posted by Concerned Resident on 04/11/09 at 11:47 AM

Why not laws or regulations?

This in from Wikipedia…A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure).

Hard to see how they can be tough if they’re not mandatory isn’t it?

Posted by Mike Bolan on 04/11/09 at 11:58 AM

#2 Max: Don’t hold your breath or invest any hope in the Libs. They’re in it up to their necks as well. No wonder there have been amendments made to the Ethics bill - if this pulp mill debacle was ever investigated, many of our current politicians would be facing gaol terms.

Posted by Maddie on 04/11/09 at 02:06 PM

Interesting to see that Gunns share price has dropped another 1.5 % today, down to 94.5 cents. Dropped 20% in the last month. Maybe the investors know something we don’t, or else they realise that if yet another Government favour of a 2 year handout is necessary it doesn’t suggest certainty in the project. They must also realise that Bartlett has just ‘hung’ himself for re election and a ‘hung’ parliament is on the cards, meaning an end to the public funded gravy train they have enjoyed with this government.

Posted by Daniel Ferguson on 04/11/09 at 04:01 PM

The Libs have nothing to lose by opposing this amendment. Labor will easily outvote them. The Libs can reap extra support at the ballot box. Of course the Tasmanian Liberal Party do not believe their own TV ads, and will continue to support corruption even though it means yet another bloody foot-shot.
Go on Will Hodgman you gutless little wannabe,
oppose something thats in the national interest for the first time in your pathetic, groveling little life.

Posted by no pulp mill on 04/11/09 at 08:33 PM

The Lib/Lab coalition is not unlike 2 distinct familes of wolves, both intent on the same carniverous pursuits of looking after their collective tummies and the feeding of their personal banking accounts. this ends the concerns for all and any other important matters (save for a bit of sportive sniping amongst each other,) so obviously extant in our crumbling Tasmania.

Posted by William Boeder on 05/11/09 at 12:04 AM

By extending the Pulp Mill permits date once again, after stating no more Government help more than a year ago, Tasmanian Labor Premier David Bartlett has comprehensively given Tasmanians the finger.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 05/11/09 at 05:40 AM

From Le Monde 4 November: UPM Kymmene in Finland is closing paper mills with job losses of 870 workers due to rising costs and to protect its plywood and timber businesses.
We often accuse the U.S.of living on a separate planet: Tasmania seems more like outer space it’s so out of tune with the rest of the world.
Tasmania’s political parties seem like comic strips: they’re certainly very bad jokes.

Posted by Mike Adams on 05/11/09 at 08:43 AM

There is little doubt that this will be passed. By whatever means, Labor has effectively bought Liberal votes, so the only opposition will as usual come from those who use their brain and have some ethical standards. We no longer expect that from Liberal or Labor.

Posted by salamander on 05/11/09 at 09:00 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.